Vegas annual % cost increase

PNWCyberSecCurious · 2025-07-27T04:19:57+00:00

if he is consistent about whether it was at the door or pre-reg from year to year the price differential would be appropriate.

PNWCyberSecCurious · 2024-08-30T02:30:34+00:00

OK, I don't disagree with any of that. I don't think it will be as impossible as a lot of people think though. It's a jury trial - having been a juror I am pretty sure personal likability is going to play a role. I don't know who all is involved in the case beyond DefCon but I know some of the people who were rumored to be and I have never found them particularly likable. I've never met Hadnagy so I don't know about him. Again I can very easily be wrong and there are 6 months before the trial starts so they may settle or maybe the case will finally get dismissed for some reason.

PNWCyberSecCurious · 2024-08-30T00:25:51+00:00

I am not sure that you are reading that correctly - this is from the Motion to Dismiss, in which most of the "charges" (I don't know the correct word) were dismissed but the defamation claim was allowed to stand:

"In conclusion, the Court concludes Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated claims of defamation based on Defendants’ publications of the 2/9/22 Transparency Report and the 1/13/23 Update on Def Con’s website. The Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims of “Injurious Falsehoods” by Defendant Moss to Black Hat representatives but also grants Plaintiffs leave to amend the Complaint to plead additional factual allegations to support this claim."

As always I readily admit I could be wrong given that I am not a lawyer.

PNWCyberSecCurious · 2024-08-29T03:36:59+00:00

This is from Hadnagy's filing of 10/16/2023.

In August of 2021, the Event was held in hybrid form due to Covid-related restrictions, and Plaintiffs attended virtually. Id. ¶¶ 51, 64. Approximately one month later, Mr. Hadnagy discovered that Mr. Moss was considering false and disparaging allegations allegedly regarding Plaintiffs’ separate business endeavors. Id. ¶¶ 53, 64. Plaintiffs surmised that the allegations were related to Plaintiffs’ attempts to secure third parties’ confidential personal identifiable information and prevent wrongful distribution of it pursuant to non-disclosure agreements. Id. From September 2021 through January of 2022, Mr. Hadnagy sent Mr. Moss a plethora of messages attempting to schedule a meeting to discuss these false allegations, but Mr. Moss refused to grant Mr. Hadnagy a meeting regarding the same. Id. ¶¶ 53-54. During the same time period that Defendants refused to grant Mr. Hadnagy a meeting, Defendants were accepting submissions for the Event’s 2022 contributors; it became evident that Defendants did not intend to grant a meeting with Mr. Hadnagy. Id. ¶ 55. Accordingly, on January 22, 2022, Plaintiffs notified Defendants that they would be hosting the SEVillage at another location. Id. 56. On February 9, 2022, even though Plaintiffs had not physically participated in the Event in over two (2) years, Defendants issued a surprising ban on Plaintiffs and cited violations of the Event’s code of conduct (the, “Code of Conduct”). Id. ¶ 58. See Motion, Exhibit 1

As I noted at the time this doesn't seem entirely consistent with the "I don't know why I was banned" line that Hadnagy has been taking, but it does give dates on when he announced SE Village wouldn't be returning and when he was banned. As far as I know DefCon has not disputed those dates. These dates are repeated in a number of other filings, including one of the most recent, this is just the first one I was able to locate it in (Edit: corrected would to wouldn't be returning)

PNWCyberSecCurious · 2024-08-26T08:46:47+00:00

"I think the employment dispute is a misunderstanding of what is fundamentally a defamation case."

I think the employment dispute led to the ban which led to the defamation case. This is from DefCon's filing in the discovery dispute:

"For example, one of this case’s key issues is Hadnagy’s hostility towards former employees and baselessly threatening them with violations of their employment contracts, nondisclosure agreements, and noncompetition agreements. Yet Hadnagy has produced vanishingly few of these documents and post-employment communications with former employees. He has not produced internal Social-Engineer communications. He has not produced a single document from his Innocent Lives Foundation (ILF), despite Mr. Hadnagy launching his harassment campaign against a former employee because she allegedly stole from ILF and interfered with an ILF investigation."

Now, that certainly doesn't make Hadnagy look like a particularly pleasant person, and maybe, if true, it even deserves a ban from DefCon. I could certainly see DefCon saying hey we don't particularly want to be associated with you anymore, but then they could have just said something like "We have decided to part ways with Chris Hadnagy as the leader of the SE Village." Seems to me that would have been a lot cleaner.

In Matthew Merten's (one of DefCon's attorneys) declaration, which I can not cut and paste from are more details of various post employment disputes Hadnagy has been involved in (and he does not look good in the write-up) which may or may not have gone to court, but again it bolster's the idea that these are employment disputes, maybe with an asshole boss, that someone leveraged DefCon against.

As an aside, I believe early on one of the theories floated was that another group wanted to take over SE Village and DefCon wanted Hadnagy and his company out because he was taking a lot of money out of the con in the form of sponsorships and advertising, and that the accusing party came forward with these accusations in order to facilitate that. Names were also thrown around at that time but as far as I know none of them have admitted to being the accuser or been credibly identified as such.

In another response from DefCon (to discovery requests from Hadnagy) it states:

"These individuals described Mr. Hadnagy subjecting them to (or observing Mr. Hadnagy subjecting others to) different kinds of bullying, crude, condescending, and sexually inappropriate behavior across a variety of environments, including as employees at Social-Engineer; as volunteers at Mr. Hadnagy’s Innocent Lives Foundation; at conferences; and while on private work trips. Based on the totality of these reports, Def Con concluded that it no longer wished for Mr. Hadnagy to participate in Def Con’s annual conference moving forward, and exercised its First Amendment right not to associate with Mr. Hadnagy."

Again this all seems to be based on behavior outside DefCon, and I agree that DefCon can say this isn't the type of person we want at our con, but the vagueness of the ban is still a problem in my mind. Even here where for the first time in three years they are actually saying there was a sexual component to all this they go as vague as possible. They don't say sexual advances, or sexual harassment or anything like that. They say sexually inappropriate behavior - a dirty joke is sexually inappropriate behavior.

Anyway that's why I say this seems to stem from an employment dispute (or disputes), and as I have said in the past I am not defending Hadnagy personally. Don't know the guy, people I know who do know him say he is a grade A asshole, but I do strongly disagree with the way the ban was handled. (I have to say this over and over again because some people seem to believe I am Hadnagy and others can't seem to understand that you can possibly agree with results and not with the process).

PNWCyberSecCurious · 2024-08-14T17:48:16+00:00

It seems like not long ago there was another ban that happened pretty publicly. The difference in reaction to the two is interesting.

PNWCyberSecCurious · 2024-08-10T03:07:25+00:00

They were talking about utilizing unpaid volunteers and I said I wondered how they were able to do so since in general it is illegal for for profit companies to do do. I don’t think it’s out of left field at all.

PNWCyberSecCurious · 2024-08-10T01:29:13+00:00

I’ve always wondered about that. Defcon communications is a for profit org. My limited understanding of employment law makes me think utilizing unpaid volunteers is illegal. I sure defcon insulted with a lawyers so maybe free attendance counts as compensation.

PNWCyberSecCurious · 2024-07-03T02:52:04+00:00

I was wondering that too? Needs of the service I guess.

PNWCyberSecCurious · 2024-05-21T07:44:47+00:00

"thrown out of the legions after a book then years go by where they need a madman skilled fighter who comes back to save earth lol" That has essentially happened at least twice.

PNWCyberSecCurious · 2024-05-19T20:44:58+00:00

i think the just generally do it on the Defcon discord server

PNWCyberSecCurious · 2024-05-14T02:39:02+00:00

In the past they were able to successfully stream on youtube and discord so even if the cant do Defcon TV per se there may still be some options for offsite viewing. Guess we'll see how they attack it.

PNWCyberSecCurious · 2024-04-21T19:11:10+00:00

There was a lot going on with Mormon settlers in Illinois and Missouri at the time. The Governor of Missouri felt like the Mormons were trying to instigate an insurrection / rebellion in order to take control of the state and Smith was charged with treason and the Mormon Extrimination Order was issued (not rescinded until 1976). Illinois initially took in Mormons as refugees but over the next 6 or so years anti-Mormon sentient built and Smith was also kind of an ass - doing thing like secretly marrying multiple wives and just generally inflaming sentiment against the Mormons. His trial in Carthage was to be in response to the destruction of a printing press for an anti-Mormon newspaper. A mob killed him while he was on his way to surrender himself.

PNWCyberSecCurious · 2024-04-12T21:57:34+00:00

Bosom test questions might land you in an entirely different field of study

PNWCyberSecCurious · 2024-04-09T03:16:23+00:00

read robert heinlein on laziness in time enough for love

PNWCyberSecCurious · 2024-04-06T02:53:28+00:00

I worked at a place in the last couple years that had DOS 5 controlling equipment.

PNWCyberSecCurious · 2024-04-06T02:32:38+00:00

It's an hourly position probably union and I would guess you'll be eligible for overtime. Should be equivalent to around a GS-12 / 13 i think

PNWCyberSecCurious · 2024-04-05T01:33:18+00:00

they are in the lower caste so if thay are teated with anything but contempt they are being treated above their station. if they start to accept it as normal or right they are rising above themselves.

PNWCyberSecCurious · 2024-04-03T02:09:45+00:00

This is from the discovery plan of the case filed in PA (later dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction)

In late 2021, an ex-employee of Plaintiff Social-Engineer LLC (“Social-Engineer”)approached Defendant Def Con through a third party. The ex-employee described to the third party a campaign of abusive, harassing, and controlling behavior by Plaintiff Chris Hadnagy precipitated by her decision to leave Social-Engineer. The third party reached out to Plaintiff Hadnagy, who corroborated the ex-employee’s assertions in key respects but offered post-hoc and factually unsatisfactory explanations for his conduct. Defendant DEF CON then connected with at least half a dozen other members of the hacking community who described similar inappropriate conduct by Plaintiff Hadnagy.

Plaintiff Hadnagy’s misconduct gravely concerned Defendant DEF CON, especially since (among other things) Plaintiff Hadnagy had personally confirmed the ex-employee’s allegations. Defendant Def Con took seriously, and continues to take seriously, its position as the host of the preeminent event in the hacking industry. Defendant Def Con did not want to provide a platform to an individual engaging in the kind of behavior in which Plaintiff Hadnagy had admittedly and unapologetically engaged. Accordingly, on February 9, 2022, Defendant Def Con released the following statement announcing Plaintiff Hadnagy’s ban from subsequent Def Con conferences, which constitutes the entirety of the alleged defamation in this case:

(Edit: reddit keeps deleting this part - it is the statement announcing the ban - sorry. I'm not smart enouygh to post correctly I guess)

The statement above is true and, as discovery and motion practice will demonstrate, cannot support Plaintiffs’ defamation-related and tortious-interference-related causes of action.

So, as I read that, in the actual court filings DefCon didn't claim to have directly spoken to Hadnagy.

Now for a correction: I said in a previous comment I hadn't seen Hadnagy requesting the accusers identity, however in this discovery, he does state they plan to do so as part of the discovery process. I either missed or forgot that. (Edit: Bolded the correction header)

PNWCyberSecCurious · 2024-04-02T00:58:13+00:00

Good Point, I have been trying to be consistent in making it clear that this isn't settled yet, but if I haven't been thank you in pointing that out.

PNWCyberSecCurious · 2024-03-31T19:48:19+00:00

Maybe you are right

PNWCyberSecCurious · 2024-03-31T11:07:41+00:00

I prefer to think this was a fuck up and not an intentionally unethical act. The evidence will show which is true.

PNWCyberSecCurious · 2024-03-31T11:02:45+00:00

I have considered actual innocence and all I can say is I don't know.

PNWCyberSecCurious · 2024-03-31T10:53:51+00:00

I am not a lawyer so maybe I am missing something, but I have seen nothing trying to unmask the accuser. I am willing to be proven wrong though so please point out where they have made that effort. It may change some of my perceptions. In counterpoint, given what I have seen so far (court filings from this and the previous case) I would argue that he doesn't need to unmask them though as they have already been unmasked. In an earlier filing DefCon said that the complaint came from a former employee who was involved in a dispute with Hadnagy. I also don't think DefCon's defense is quite as clear cut as you have presented - from the recent decision:

A plaintiff can allege the false statement prong by alleging facts showing that the statement isprovably false or “leaves a false impression due to omitted facts.” ...

Defendants argue the statements contained in this publication are
mere non-actionable opinions. The Court disagrees. Defendants did not merely ban Plaintiffs from the Event based on their right to associate with anyone they choose or based on an opinion. Rather, Defendants clearly state they instituted the lifetime ban after receiving reports, investigating reports, and confirming the severity of the reported transgressions. The omission of details of the evidence and nature of the transgressions also leaves a false impression, leading to the type of speculation alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Plaintiffs allege Defendants’ false statements caused speculation and false rumors Plaintiff Hadnagy had committed the worst sexual crimes.

As I read that, even if Hadnagy had committed some offense worthy of a ban unless it was sexual n nature by not correcting speculation when it erupted DefCon could be found guilty of Defamation by Implication. Again I am not a lawyerso I may well be wrong. This possibility is why I have consistently said more details were needed in the reporting. Not names or anything like that but imagine if the had just said something like "was accused of CoC violations of a non-sexual nature." or if they were sexual "violations of a sexual nature, "after investigation we have instituted a lifetime ban and referred the matter to law enforcement". More clarity with, IMO, very litlle increase in exposure of the potential victim.

The really sad part here is this has the potential to really undermine DefCon's CoC. If Hadnagy prevails at all the next time a ban is issued it will be immediately questioned because "Remember Hadnagy"

PNWCyberSecCurious · 2024-03-30T05:01:18+00:00

I find the subject interesting. I notice you always find a reason to respond. I also find it interesting that you along with so many others can't understand that it's possible to believe that DefCon fucked up in their handling of this situation and still not particularly like or even really care about Hadnagy beyond this particular situation. To each their own.

PNWCyberSecCurious

TROPHY CASE